Apple spent a great deal of time and money getting those animations to look just right.

How on earth though can this patent demonstrate their lovingly-crafted animation?

It has just three intermediate states, with no real description of the nature of the page turn effect. In fact, about the only thing that the patent includes is a note to say that the nature of the process and pacing of the animation is not specified.

What's more those three states as specified do not appear to match the iPad page turn itself.

Pause at, say, 12 seconds in and you can see that the angle of the turn is deeper on the iPad, crossing more of the page:

So, Apple don't appear to be trying to patent their exact design, but rather something more general.

What's more, there's a transparency effect used on the iPad as the page turns. which is not mentioned in Apple's patent, but which is described in Microsoft's earlier application for its Courier patent.

See above; it's a *design* patent, not a functional patent.
They aren't patenting the *idea* of a page turn animation; they are patenting the look of *their* particular animation. Infringement only comes if somebody else's page turn animation looks too much like theirs. Perfectly valid. They are entitled to protect their investment and discourage others from copying their products. So I approve of the patent and the philosophy since it'll encourage others to actually think differently and not copy *them*. (Microsoft, on the other hand has never made too much of a stink when their products are copies a wee bit too closely. Diversity of opinion, there.)

I seen that most interesting ipad mini ad on tv - for some strange reason we forgot to forward through the comercials when watching a show from dvr. That ad shows a ipad opening and closing books probably in ibooks, not sure never seen ibooks before. And then flipping a page back and forth. At the end it said ipad mini. No voice no nothing - afterwards my wife looks at me and tells mehow it is the most stupid commercial she ever seen. I just shrugged and said: Well it is an ipad, it has that nice new page-flipping feature, I don't get the ad either.

So seeing how that was the only part of the comercial, I can see why apple tries to "protect" their "investment". I don't see the greatness in that page-turning, but I am worried about the not clear at all patent - it is a setup to sue.

Someone please file a patent for page-turning with variable page-angle, except a few degrees around the apple angle - and licence it out for free, except to apple.

Has anyone noticed the newest nook commercial, where the family members keep taking the device from each other, shows their version of the page flipping? They better watch out or they'll be sued for that.

I see page turn animations as a needless consumption of CPU cycles and battery. The first personalization I do on devices (pc, phone, etc) is turn off the eye candy.

It's perhaps worth noting that the page-turn in iBooks is more than just needless animation; it's actually a "live" page image, so to speak. You can partially turn the page back and read what's at the bottom of the previous page. That can be very useful on occasions. Just like lifting the corner of a physical page to read what's underneath.

It's perhaps worth noting that the page-turn in iBooks is more than just needless animation; it's actually a "live" page image, so to speak. You can partially turn the page back and read what's at the bottom of the previous page. That can be very useful on occasions. Just like lifting the corner of a physical page to read what's underneath.

It's also worth noting that that is exactly what is described in Microsoft's patent application, filed at least 18 months before Apple's, but not yet granted.

It isn't mentioned in Apple's own patent, which as I've shown above, doesn't even match what their iBooks animation actually does.

I find the US patent system most peculiar.

Edit: I should add that I expect there's plenty of prior art to invalidate the Microsoft patent as well, which may be why it's still pending. I just find it odd that the Apple one was granted.

Hmm what does it mean ? That all other devices that currently have page turn will become illegal ? Or other brands must shell out money to Apple ? Or what, cause page turning isn't exactly brand new technology.

Hmm what does it mean ? That all other devices that currently have page turn will become illegal ? Or other brands must shell out money to Apple ? Or what, cause page turning isn't exactly brand new technology.

No and no.
This is a design patent, for the particular layout and animation steps of one implementation of page turning. It is not a functionality patent for the idea of page turning.